warriorsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Warrior Cats Wiki/Opinion Archive 2
This page contains archived discussions that have been completed. Family Do you think that we should include extended family, such as cousins, in the family section of the template Charcat? YEA or NAY? Put your thoughts below, and voting will open October 23. Sign with ~~~~. I think we should include the extended family. Do we exclude our cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. from our family? :But, when people say "Write down your family", who do you write down? You write your mother, father, husband/wife, siblings, and offspring. Sometimes Grandparents. You don't generaly go about listing your great-aunts, aunts, uncles and cousins, now do you? [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC) VOTE (Closed) :YEA Eu 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :NAY [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :YEA --~|ET|~ ([[User_talk:Electric Turahk|'Talk']]/ ) 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC) It's nice to show how all of these cats are connected. And we don't have to worry about the whole Family Tree fiasco, because we already have all relationships determined over on Wikipedia. --~|ET|~ ([[User_talk:Electric Turahk|'Talk']]/ ) 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :NAY Gorse Simply on the grounds that HOLY CRUD, have you LOOKED at some of those family trees on the official website? The template will be longer than the article if we link up every single character some of these cats are related to, because by the time we reach PoT, most of the cats in ThunderClan are related, however distantly. It's not worth it to chase after all those names and titles. --Gorse 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Further Comments ET... I know that you lean towards super-inclusive information... But should the info-box designed to give an OVERVIEW of a character really an appropriate place for hyper-anal detail? Maybe adding a Detailed Family section under history might be more appropriate... or creating detailed family trees for those that we know... But doesn't it seem wrong to be cluttering up a box for basics about a character with things like their Paternal grea-aunt? and a full listing of their cousins? We do have to consdier ahead. Rumors expect a full series of additional books, which to me means another generation in the family. How much do you wish to have packed into those characters info-boxes? [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :A very valid point indead. So why not go with the family tree section (Though not as history, but in its own section after that)? Putting all of the information in the template really wouldn't make sense, but that doesn't mean we can't do it elsewhere, right? And to a comment above: The family trees are false. Very much so. The Wikipedia Warriors editors, though, have compiled information from the books and determined what should be accurate depictions of the family trees, so we already have the information available. --~|ET|~ ([[User_talk:Electric Turahk|'Talk']]/ ) 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) ::I meant to talk about adding it as an additional section, either above or below where history is (we'll be able to settle on a standard location during implementation, should it happen). And considering that Wikipedia isn't suposed to contain any researched items (don't have have something about that in their policies?) here will be a safer place for inclusion, as research is one of those things that make this Wiki go-round. Out of curiosity, where was it that the author(s) said that the family trees on the warriorscats site are false? I know there are errors in the map, based directly on book text. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC) :::Well, it was at one of the tours that the Wikipedia editors went to... I know it's not completely verifiable because of that, but the trees already have such obvious mistakes on them, that it would be best not to trust them anyways. Oh, and, yeah, I'd go with having it below the history section. No problems there. --~|ET|~ ([[User_talk:Electric Turahk|'Talk']]/ ) 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Results While no voting consensus was reached, a quality compromise was attained during further discussion. Extended family will not be included in the Charcat Template, but it WILL be able to be included (when appropriate) on the character page below the history. This implementation will be handed over to Project Characters. This discussion will be archived in 24 hours. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) News Archives How many news updates do we have to have before we can Archive them? It seems to be a good idea to have a set number, and keep things more organized. Eu 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :I have two options that I've been considering for proposal. One is that we could start Archiving on a monthly basis, and collecting each months news to a single archive page. Or we could pick a number like 5 of 10 for the number we keep on the newsbox at any given time, and then just pick a number for how many updates we store per archive page (10 is a nice one for that, or some other similarly round number). [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ::Sounds good to me. Eu 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC) :::Sounds good? But... I put forth two options to discuss... What sounds good? [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Sorry about that, I jumped the gun a bit. I think the "monthly basis" sounds good. Eu 18:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) VOTE (Closed) Select an Option and vote in that options' favor, making sure to sign your vote with ~~~~. THE OPTIONS # Month's news displayed with Monthly Archiving System # 10 News articles displayed, archived in pages of 10 # 10 News articles displayed, archived in pages of 20 # 5 News articles displayed, archived in pages of 20 # 5 News articles displayed, archived in pages of 10 # 5 News articles displayed, archived in pages of 5 THE VOTES :2''' [[User:Kitsufox|'''Kitsufox]](Fox's Den) 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) :1''' [[User:Eu|'''Eulalia459678]](Salamandastron) 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Results With few voters and no consensus, this discussion will be tables for a week and brought back for yet another round of voting. This time putting ONLY options 1 and 2 on the ballot. This topic will be archived in 24 hours. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Tribe of Rushing Water Discussion Thi is a discussion for the format of the Tribe's page. What do you think it should be? Place suggestions below, and voting will begin as soon as we have two choices. :It's too soon to even consider a set date for voting, Eu. I think tribes should probobly be set along the lines of the same sort of thing as the Clans. And right now there's just some kinks getting worked out of the Clan pages. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Does anyone acctually feel this should go to voting? I really don't feel there's any discussion, and if it's warranted, it should be handled by Project World, not the main population. Those interested in a discussion and/or a vote on this subject should take the matter to the project. This topic will be archived in 24 hours. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Redirects Should we make redirects for every characters previous names? For instance, a Sandstorm AND Sandpaw page. If someone has only read Into the Wild, they won't know her warrior name, and would have quite a lot of trouble finding her. [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 23:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) :I've already got a lot of ItW redirects in place. I hadn't considering discussion it, it's the way I've been doing it since I started here. Though, I'm ONLY putting in a redirect when the character acctually appeared in a book under that name (IE: Rusty, Firepaw, and Fireheart all point at Firestar's page, but a Bluepelt (or is it Bluefur?) page was never created to redirect to Bluestar). Do we need a formal policy about this, you think? Maybe a note about it for Project Characters would be in order... Unless someone considers this something we shouldn't be doing? [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 03:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Does anyone feel this should acctually go to vote? I personally like the policy currently in place, and wouldn't have a problem creating a policy page about the matter. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Categories for RP Characters Category:RP CoSC characters|CoSC Character's Category I had already planned this sort of category for established RP games in the Role Play Phenomenon section before there were people to question me and offer alternate points of view, and until someone brought this one up I didn't consider that their would be any distention as to the suitability of the Wiki for storing information relating to the Fanon Characters created on games that have been around long enough to prove they have staying power. So.. I figured it was appropriate to open a discussion if the idea before doing any further implementation on the idea. :YEA I thought about it and the banner does say "and surrounding internet phenomenon". Eu 01:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ::Vote hasn't exactly been called yet, Eu. The topic has hit the floor for discussion and people to get thoughts and feelings out. Sometimes discussion and the ideas of others can acctually change opinions, so it is an important step in the process. Particularly when you have a fairly small community that can take the time to really discuss things. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ::Oops... sorry. Got a little carried away. Eu 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC) VOTING (Closed) Vote YAY (Permit established RPs to post fanon characters) or NAY (Do not permit established RPs to post fanon characters) and sign with ~~~~. :YAY [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Clearly marked Fanon characters could be an asset to this Wiki. The online community is a huge part of the fandom as a whole, and deserves respect and a place here. :YAY [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Now I can vote. I'm not sure that I want to do this... Because the contributer who had the concerns hasn't spoken at all so far on this, but... 48 hours and this vote will be closed. I'll give ET a poke on their Userpage to get their attention. Don't want them to miss the vote/discussion on their own issue. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 12:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :YAY It would make the RP articles better in my opinion. Aurorastar 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :NAY I can't say I know anything about Children of StarClan other than what I just read in the article, because I'm not that interested in becoming involved with RP fansites (No offense - I've tried before, it just didn't work out.). However, why can't that artcle just be expanded with a characters section? Individual pages would not be a good idea at all, IMO, because it is still my personal opinion that, articles such as the CoSC one aside (Which are just a nice look into the fanbase), this should be an official content Wiki. --~|ET|~ ([[User_talk:Electric Turahk|'Talk']]/ ) 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) ::Many RP forums have too many characters to 'just' make a character section for.Aurorastar 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC) :::Then making something a page like Children of StarClan/Characters. Individual characters pages would be a far worse idea. As you said, there are a lot of them, so it would complicate things a lot, and for those who aren't so informed (Like, a casual reader coming here just to check info), a fanon character might look real. --~|ET|~ ([[User_talk:Electric Turahk|'Talk']]/ ) 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm already laying plans for very clear markings for fanon characters. We do have the ability to create new Namespaces for the Wiki, we might wish to consider having one of those Namespaces be Fanon... so that Fanon characters and sections would be Fanon:Pagename... I think, given the current layout of this vote, there will end up being a string of additional votes and discussions concerning the rules and processes before any RP will be permitted to create character pages on the Wiki. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Results 4 Yay votes, 1 Nay vote. There will be RP Character Categories, but further discussion, for the execution and the policies will be held prior to any RP forming their category and starting to add characters. I belive that ET's concerns on potential problems are well founded, and that they shall need to be addressed carefully to ensure that everything fanon that we permit is clearly marked. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 03:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Feature Article Frequency Since we have no set rules for this, we should really establish a time-frame for our feature articles. THE CHOICES : Weekly - You favor a feature period of one week. :Weekly ~~~~ : Bi-weekly - You favor a feature period of two weeks. :Bi-weekly ~~~~ : Monthly - You favor a feature period of four weeks, or one month. :Monthly ~~~~ : Other - Specify another timeframe. :Other SPECIFY-HERE ~~~~ VOTING (Closed) :Monthly [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) :Weekly [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I feel that having the same article for a month would get... kinda old after a while. A week seems like a better choice, seeing as it is not too short, and not too long. :Bi-Weekly seems like a good time-frame for us, seeing as we don't have many articles approaching FA quality. However, I think the intros should be beefed up Wikipedia style so that they're a quick summary of the cat. Otherwise, we'd have a rather large Main Page. And I support changing this to a more frequent time period once we get more FA output. [[User:Hobbes15|'Hobbes15']](Tiger Headquarters) 00:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC) ::The problem with that is it would raise the position of the spoiler tag, leaving NOTHING above it. I suggest bringing it up on the project for further discussion. Good lord... I hope this dosen't turn into another 'no consensus' vote... [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC) :Monthly Just given the fact that we have so few articles that are at the full quality we'd want for FA status, I think it's best if we do it much less frequently for now. We don't want people to be rushing to slap together barely passable articles just so we can have a new one up for the Featured Article. Once we start finishing more articles, then it might be a good idea to re-vote for a more frequent change. However, for right now, I believe monthly is the best choice. Gorse 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC) :Monthly Months go by faster than you think... Aurorastar 22:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 24 hours to vote close! Those still wishing to get their votes in should do so quickly. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Results :Feature articles will be posted on a monthly basis. I do, however, suggest that this be reviewed at a later time when more of the Wiki's pages are completed and sparkly. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 13:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Spoiler Warning Tag Colors After a long discussion on Startspoiler Talk, the time has come for a vote. THE CHOICES | width="25%" align="center" | | width="25%" align="center" | | width="25%" align="center" | |- | width="25%" align="center" | #BF608A on #FFE6F1 | width="25%" align="center" | #9060BF on #F2E6FF | width="25%" align="center" | #007F43 on #E6FFFD | width="25%" align="center" | #000000 on #008080 |- |} VOTING CODES :Use the codes here to vote for your choices.Any personal comments should go AFTER the voting code. VOTE (Closed) :Bluey-Purply [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Will compliment the new scheme without clashing. :Dark Greens [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC) :Dark Greens. [[User:Hobbes15|'Hobbes15']](Tiger Headquarters) 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC) :Bluey-Purply Gorse 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC) I honestly think Really Minty is the most visually appealing, but it just doesn't mesh with the color scheme as well. You have to consider the color scheme, which is one of the reason I don't like Dark Greens. WWiki just seems to be working with pastel-ey colors, and Dark Greens... Really sort of jars the consistency, not to mention it really doesn't visually appeal. ::I personally love really Minty but when the same way for the same reasons ;) Thinking about recruiting the really-minty set for the redo of the Unreleased Books tag. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC) :Bluey-Purply I think it catches the eyes better than Dark Green. Aurorastar 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Results Bluey-Purply colors will be going into use for our spoiler tags in accordance with a magority of 3 votes Bluey-purply, and 2 for Dark Greens. Thank you for your votes. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Voting System : Basic In an effort to clean up the voting system and make it a bit prettier (Eu calls just saying "yay" and "nay" barbaric for some reason, personally, I'd consider it spartan...), I've developed a some templates to make it quick and easy. :Template:Vote-basic - The instructions :Template:voteyay - to vote Yay :Template:votenay - to vote Nay :Template:dontvote - to abstain Consider this both the test run AND the voting for implementation. Should it pass, it will be used on all NEW yay/nay votes we offer. It will NOT be implemented for votes in process. VOTE (Closed) [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC) The only reason I consider it, to quote Kitsufox, "barbaric", is because we have better ways to do it, such as this way. Give me one good reason YAY and NAY are any better. ::Eu... This is LITERALLY the same exact thing... But with graphics instead. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) :::It's the "same exact thing", but which is more visually appealing? [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 22:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC) ::::The only reason I agreed to do it was becuase it will lead to more consistent vote delivery, and more consistent voting instructions. Considering the Talk Pages are for community members and contributers, Improving the looks of them isn't exactly high on the list of things that I worry about the aesthetic of (I save that for the Main Namespace). [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) : Heh, it's funny to watch Eu and Fox slightly argue over a plus sign. :) Aurorastar 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ::Glad to ammuse you.;) But you have to admit, I have a point. [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :::Yep. You do. Still funny though. Aurorastar 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ::::Wow, glad to have someone on my side. [[User:Eu|'Eulalia459678']](Salamandastron) 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :::::It's a minor concern, Eu. It looks visually more appealing, but it was something that I could really have made better use of my time than doing. *shrugs* As for you getting "someone" on your side... I disagree and agree as I see fit. I don't pretend things are acceptable just to be non-confrontational, and in the same vein, I accept and openly agree with those things I agree with. You should take the fact that I /did/ this suggestion as a good sign, that I didn't argue against it. And be thankful, at least I always explain the reasons for my dissent with ideas pitched by others (or my reasons for supporting that idea). I don't just say "no, I don't like that" and leave it there. Guys, for read-ability, remember to add the number of colons the person before you used, plus one. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Results Yes. I'm closing this a few hours early. But at least Wiki time we're into the 14th, so I'm taking action so that I can go to bed and have the vote I'm suposed to open tonight open using the new templates. 3 Votes of Yay (2 active contributers, 1 limited/new contributer), 0 Votes of Nay. The new voting system will be put into place. How-to documentation, and some voting guidelines will be put into effect as soon as we put a policy through the appropriate process. [[User:Kitsufox|'Kitsufox']](Fox's Den) 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)